4.5 Review

Single- and hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for large (> 2 cm) brain metastases: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 154, 期 1, 页码 25-34

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-021-03805-8

关键词

Fractionation; Large brain metastasis; Stereotactic radiosurgery; Tumor control; Radiation toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HF-SRS results in better local control of large BMs and improved overall survival compared to SF-SRS, while simultaneously reducing the incidence of radiation toxicity.
Purpose Since frameless stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) techniques have been recently introduced, hypofractionated SRS (HF-SRS) for large brain metastases (BMs) is gradually increasing. To verify the efficacy and safety of HF-SRS for large BMs, we aimed to perform a systematic review and compared them with SF-SRS. Methods We systematically searched the studies regarding SF-SRS or HF-SRS for large (> 2 cm) BM from databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on July 31, 2018. Biologically effective dose with the alpha/beta ratio of 10 (BED10), 1-year local control (LC), and radiation necrosis (RN) were compared between the two groups, with the studies being weighted by the sample size. Results The 15 studies with 1049 BMs that described 1-year LC and RN were included. HF-SRS tended to be performed in larger tumors; however, higher mean BED10 (50.1 Gy(10) versus 40.4 Gy(10), p < 0.0001) was delivered in the HF-SRS group, which led to significantly improved 1-year LC (81.6 versus 69.0%, p < 0.0001) and 1-year overall survival (55.1 versus 47.2%, p < 0.0001) in the HF-SRS group compared to the SF-SRS group. In contrast, the incidence of radiation toxicity was significantly decreased in the HF-SRS group compared to the SF-SRS group (8.0 versus 15.6%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion HF-SRS results in better LC of large BMs while simultaneously reducing RN compared to SF-SRS. Thus, HF-SRS should be considered a priority for SF-SRS in patients with large BMs who are not suitable to undergo surgical resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据